Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much for coming today. We've all read with interest your curriculum vitae and listened to your statement here. We're all incredibly impressed with your credentials, your integrity, your honesty, and we're very pleased, obviously, to say statements in support—I think I speak for my colleagues when I say that—of your nomination.
One thing we've been doing as a committee, among many other things involving the minister's very busy agenda for us, is discussing perhaps even the future of the Canadian Human Rights Commission with respect to, in particular, hate crime complaints.
I do note in your very lengthy CV.... Your CV took a long time to read. None of us have that long a CV at all. Dominic's and mine, in particular, could be read in 20 seconds.
I did happen to notice, because it's of interest to this committee, that you were a member of a panel involving a complaint in 2003; in particular, the complaint involved Richard Warman, and the respondent was Fred Kyburz.
In that decision, on which you were a panel member, Mr. Kyburz did not appear or give any evidence. He was duly served but didn't. His website, which was put up and introduced into evidence, known as the Patriots on Guard website, was the issue. That site had many statements on it that were very detrimental to the Jewish community, linking them to issues of child pornography, and bleeding Russia dry, and I will not countenance any of the other comments being made, but let's say there were six pages of the evidence upon which you, as a panel member, decided.
What I have for you is a question that is pretty simple. The panel got together and wrote a decision accepting the complaint as one based in hate and used these words to summarize it. I just want to ask you, if I could read these words, whether you agree with their content. They are as follows:
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that such right "... includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media ..."
That goes to the right of free speech.
While the right to hold and express one's opinions is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society, such a right is not unlimited. In some situations, the protection of society mandates limits on what individuals may say. For this reason, it is unlawful to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when no fire exists, to phone in a bomb threat, or to threaten to kill another person.
The tribunal went on then to quote the Taylor case, with which we're very familiar, and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. The tribunal, of which you were a part, concluded:
The Court concluded that while section 13 infringed the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this infringement was justified in light of international commitments to eradicate hate propaganda, and Canada's commitment to the values of equality and multiculturalism. Having found that Fred Kyburz did communicate, repeatedly, by means of the facilities of a telecommunications undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, matter that is likely to expose people of the Jewish faith to hatred or contempt, Mr. Warman's section 13 complaint is substantiated.
The simple question is, were you a part of that panel? And were you involved in the expression of this opinion, in writing, and do you agree with its content?